Insurance also has to cover lost revenue from lost flights, in a world where flight paths are sliced and diced and sold to investors. Grounded aircraft are incredible expensive, accidents have happened that way, so it's not as simple as protecting aircraft from dust scratches at all cost.
Ultimately they'll do the sums and make a sensible decision, which will probably be somewhere between "cancel all flights" and "open all flight paths heading from Scotland to Iceland".
On the other hand the lack of aircraft contrails after 9/11 was said to result in a marked increase in temperature. It'll be interesting to see if climate modeling accurately predicts the outcome on the next couple of years of weather.
In which the plane was 150km away from the volcano, where the pilots had no idea that it was an ash cloud and had no procedure for it or radar which could detect it.
Edinburgh is ~1300km from Iceland, and we have very detailed, up to date satellite photos and full awareness of the problem.
They're the ones who'd have to pay if an accident happened, they're the ones who own the aircraft, they're the ones who best understand the risks involved. Even in a much more intense cloud of ash, closer to the volcano which was at a higher altitude, which caused 4 engines to shut down (BA9, the textbook example) 3 of 4 engines started up once they got out of the ash cloud.
Meanwhile all planes grounded over a risk that experts don't think is credible means vacations ruined, investments lost, business trips canceled, insurance premiums increasing, airplane ticket prices increasing, etc, etc.
Have you seen the famous "wikipedia lolicon" image? It's completely tame, especially when you compare it to some of the graphic images of cancer, surgically removed breast ducts etc, that you can see on some wikipedia pages. This is a non-issue.
I have also since founded a more responsible project, Citizendium.org, and a teacher-edited non-profit directory of preK-12 educational videos, WatchKnow.org. Given my position of influence on matters related to Wikipedia, though I'm no longer associated with it, I feel I have a moral obligation to make the following report.
I agree, I think they could have let it run its course without serious risk, but I think your politicians recognize that as tough as it is to have misinformed policies imposed on your country it's probably worthwhile in the long run.
Hopefully Lithuania will bring a replacement nuclear plant online before too long, and the EU's ~1.3bn Euro assistance to get the plant closed will soften the blow.
Also other identical reactors, built at the same time from the same design, like the one at Ignalina in Lithuania continued operating until the end of 2009 (not because the plant was at the end of its useful life, but because the EU didn't want Lithuania to be operating a potentially unsafe reactor any longer).
Chernobyl type reactors, despite being absolutely obsolete and horribly dangerous by 1980s nuclear standards (even if they are far more stringent than other energy standards), have been operating right up until the end of last year. (With some updated safety features learned from Chernobyl of course)
Welcome to slashdot, where if you disagree with the majority you are modded troll.
I've watched Stallman's talks and while he has some good thoughts he has some completely absurd ones, and his government allocation for artists idea is one of them.
He proposed giving artists an income according to the cube root of their popularity, so smaller artists are better supported and larger ones much less supported. Do people really think this is a realistic idea? How could it be implemented? If it's done by taxes how do you stop artists going overseas? Do people really want such strict government control on art of all things? How popular would you have to be to get the minimum artists income subsidized by the highest earners?
Can't we agree/disagree with ideas rather than agree/disagree with people? Just because he made some software you use and like is absolutely no reason to give his political views any more weight than someone ranting on a street corner.
People aren't stupid, they just don't care about javascript-JIT-compilation or tab-process-isolation or ad-blocking or acid3-tests.
Web browsers all look and function very similarly, and in many respects compete based on just how indistinguishable they are from each other; who's to say the people who just want to view their websites are stupid?
The whole thing is a bit silly in some ways:
Many of the browsers use the same rendering engine, there are only 3-4 major ones. Most of the second page browsers are just re-skins/forks
Other operating systems don't present the choice so openly. I understand the argument that it's a monopolistic practice, but it seems at least Apple should be made to do the same thing
Why browsers and not the countless other MS bundled apps? Why not provide the same choice for text editors, movie players, file managers/shells, instant messengers, command prompts, e-mail clients, etc?
What happens when MS or their OEM clients start getting report requests relating to problems with a particular browser? etc
It's good that it helps even up the web client distribution, but I wouldn't call anyone stupid for clicking through randomly and wondering why they're being bothered with such an apparently inconsequential choice.
Hopefully one day I can be a smart "grown up" that formulates long, tedious posts justifying their (past) choice of light-bulb by calling other people stupid.
Is it worth spreading FUD about strobe lighting with buzz saws, and resolved IR problems in undisclosed light-bulb brands, when they make clear energy savings? I guess it doesn't matter
Personally I prefer candles or kerosene lighting, I don't go for all this electricity bullshit.
You see light is a part of the electro-magnetic spectrum and therefore the candela SI unit of light-- [... incoming wall of text about my stupid choice of lighting]
At least it's based on an entertaining story with no intergalatic DC-9s on the one hand or talking donkeys on the other hand. (I literally laughed out loud when the donkey said "Am I not your faithful donkey?" in an audio-Bible I was listening to)
While you're reading doctrine online check out the Vatican's webpage. It actually has an aged-parchment CSS background to look more sacred, it's so cute!
I agree you can't bunch everyone with environmental concerns into one uniform, crazy group, but there is an element of truth in how environmental concerns seem to hold up any movement at all, in any direction.
Whether it's nuclear, solar, biofuels, gas, wind, anything, environmental concerns come up and while people are "evaluating the solution" the solution doesn't get implemented and all of a sudden you're facing energy shortages (as Britain is).
If you didn't think BioShock 2 by itself was a good deal why did you pay for it?
If you did think it was a good deal then, why don't you think so now that it turns out they made some locked feature before shipping rather than after?
Most shareware comes with the full version bundled, you need to pay to unlock functionality that's present, and it's just as stupid to call that a "bug" as it is to call this a "bug".
They didn't trick or cheat anyone, so this isn't something to get angry about: If you don't want to unlock the extra stuff then don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Insurance also has to cover lost revenue from lost flights, in a world where flight paths are sliced and diced and sold to investors. Grounded aircraft are incredible expensive, accidents have happened that way, so it's not as simple as protecting aircraft from dust scratches at all cost.
Ultimately they'll do the sums and make a sensible decision, which will probably be somewhere between "cancel all flights" and "open all flight paths heading from Scotland to Iceland".
On the other hand the lack of aircraft contrails after 9/11 was said to result in a marked increase in temperature. It'll be interesting to see if climate modeling accurately predicts the outcome on the next couple of years of weather.
In which the plane was 150km away from the volcano, where the pilots had no idea that it was an ash cloud and had no procedure for it or radar which could detect it.
Edinburgh is ~1300km from Iceland, and we have very detailed, up to date satellite photos and full awareness of the problem.
They're the ones who'd have to pay if an accident happened, they're the ones who own the aircraft, they're the ones who best understand the risks involved. Even in a much more intense cloud of ash, closer to the volcano which was at a higher altitude, which caused 4 engines to shut down (BA9, the textbook example) 3 of 4 engines started up once they got out of the ash cloud.
Meanwhile all planes grounded over a risk that experts don't think is credible means vacations ruined, investments lost, business trips canceled, insurance premiums increasing, airplane ticket prices increasing, etc, etc.
That was 150km downwind of a volcano which was at a much higher altitude. I doubt the damage would be comparable.
Have you seen the famous "wikipedia lolicon" image? It's completely tame, especially when you compare it to some of the graphic images of cancer, surgically removed breast ducts etc, that you can see on some wikipedia pages. This is a non-issue.
Don't even link to it, that's all he's trying to achieve with this..
I have also since founded a more responsible project, Citizendium.org, and a teacher-edited non-profit directory of preK-12 educational videos, WatchKnow.org. Given my position of influence on matters related to Wikipedia, though I'm no longer associated with it, I feel I have a moral obligation to make the following report.
What a douchebag.
I agree, I think they could have let it run its course without serious risk, but I think your politicians recognize that as tough as it is to have misinformed policies imposed on your country it's probably worthwhile in the long run.
Hopefully Lithuania will bring a replacement nuclear plant online before too long, and the EU's ~1.3bn Euro assistance to get the plant closed will soften the blow.
Also other identical reactors, built at the same time from the same design, like the one at Ignalina in Lithuania continued operating until the end of 2009 (not because the plant was at the end of its useful life, but because the EU didn't want Lithuania to be operating a potentially unsafe reactor any longer).
Chernobyl type reactors, despite being absolutely obsolete and horribly dangerous by 1980s nuclear standards (even if they are far more stringent than other energy standards), have been operating right up until the end of last year. (With some updated safety features learned from Chernobyl of course)
Welcome to slashdot, where if you disagree with the majority you are modded troll.
I've watched Stallman's talks and while he has some good thoughts he has some completely absurd ones, and his government allocation for artists idea is one of them.
He proposed giving artists an income according to the cube root of their popularity, so smaller artists are better supported and larger ones much less supported. Do people really think this is a realistic idea? How could it be implemented? If it's done by taxes how do you stop artists going overseas? Do people really want such strict government control on art of all things? How popular would you have to be to get the minimum artists income subsidized by the highest earners?
Can't we agree/disagree with ideas rather than agree/disagree with people? Just because he made some software you use and like is absolutely no reason to give his political views any more weight than someone ranting on a street corner.
How is this offtopic?
[Citation needed]
The only trouble with Steam is that it requires... an internet connection.
And who has one of those these days?
Web browsers all look and function very similarly, and in many respects compete based on just how indistinguishable they are from each other; who's to say the people who just want to view their websites are stupid?
The whole thing is a bit silly in some ways:
It's good that it helps even up the web client distribution, but I wouldn't call anyone stupid for clicking through randomly and wondering why they're being bothered with such an apparently inconsequential choice.
Don't know what a strawman argument is? Check.
Going to respond to this post even though you say you think I'm a stupid troll? Check.
Hopefully one day I can be a smart "grown up" that formulates long, tedious posts justifying their (past) choice of light-bulb by calling other people stupid.
Is it worth spreading FUD about strobe lighting with buzz saws, and resolved IR problems in undisclosed light-bulb brands, when they make clear energy savings? I guess it doesn't matter
Table saws and long-resolved IR problems? Jeez we better go back to campfires or our eyeballs will surely explode..
Personally I prefer candles or kerosene lighting, I don't go for all this electricity bullshit.
You see light is a part of the electro-magnetic spectrum and therefore the candela SI unit of light-- [... incoming wall of text about my stupid choice of lighting]
At least it's based on an entertaining story with no intergalatic DC-9s on the one hand or talking donkeys on the other hand. (I literally laughed out loud when the donkey said "Am I not your faithful donkey?" in an audio-Bible I was listening to)
While you're reading doctrine online check out the Vatican's webpage. It actually has an aged-parchment CSS background to look more sacred, it's so cute!
I agree you can't bunch everyone with environmental concerns into one uniform, crazy group, but there is an element of truth in how environmental concerns seem to hold up any movement at all, in any direction.
Whether it's nuclear, solar, biofuels, gas, wind, anything, environmental concerns come up and while people are "evaluating the solution" the solution doesn't get implemented and all of a sudden you're facing energy shortages (as Britain is).
If you didn't think BioShock 2 by itself was a good deal why did you pay for it?
If you did think it was a good deal then, why don't you think so now that it turns out they made some locked feature before shipping rather than after?
Most shareware comes with the full version bundled, you need to pay to unlock functionality that's present, and it's just as stupid to call that a "bug" as it is to call this a "bug".
They didn't trick or cheat anyone, so this isn't something to get angry about: If you don't want to unlock the extra stuff then don't.
These are comics with computer science / math / physics jokes..
This comic has a kernel of truth regarding Portal references: http://www.eegra.com/show/sub/do/browse/cat/comics/id/18